On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 04:27:27PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 4:20 PM Danilo Krummrich wrote: > > On Fri Jan 16, 2026 at 9:02 AM CET, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote: > > > diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS > > > index a671e3d4e8be..fd683c62012a 100644 > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS > > > @@ -22517,6 +22517,13 @@ F: include/uapi/linux/rseq.h > > > F: kernel/rseq.c > > > F: tools/testing/selftests/rseq/ > > > > > > +REVOCABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT > > > +M: Tzung-Bi Shih <[email protected]> > > > +L: [email protected] > > > +S: Maintained > > > +F: drivers/base/revocable.c > > > +F: include/linux/revocable.h > > > > NIT: I think we should add this include to the DRIVER CORE entry as well. > > FWIW: I'm not even sure drivers/base/ is the right place for this. > Except for a few devm_ helpers, nothing here is inherently tied into > the driver model This could be useful outside of device drivers and I > would suggest to put it under lib/ with devres factored out into a > separate source file.
I agree. Based on the discussions we had at LPC, the revocable resource management API is not the right solution to handle races between device removal and userspace access. It is however a possibly useful tool for races between producers and consumers *inside the kernel*. lib/ is a better location. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
